(August 12, 2020 at 8:58 am)brewer Wrote:(August 12, 2020 at 1:22 am)Belacqua Wrote: If you think that there is something in science which proves that something can exist without there being any existence, please let us know. Such a proof would falsify Thomas's argument.
Why do you think science has to address the flawed argument that was designed from the outset to shoehorn god into the beginning of the universe?
The Thomas arguments only utility is to justify god (christian god) for believers. It could just as easily be applied to any other god/creator concept, and still remain a flawed justification.
Aquinas' Ways are intended to show, through reason, that "something" that could be rightly called "God" exists. But yes, I agree they are ultimately meant to serve as [partial] justification for belief in a particular type of God, namely the triune Christian God, even if these arguments perse don't specifically point there. For Aquinas, the Trinity and various other stuff about God could only be known through revelation, not logic.
What I find interesting are the debates Christians have amongst each other regarding whether the God of Aquinas is in line with the God of Scriptures. Some Christians believe that the notion of God being absolute divine simplicity contradicts God as the Trinity and takes away from his agency/personhood. Other Christians who agree with Aquinas have had to work out ways to reconcile the Trinity with absolute simplicity. And the debate continues.
